HS2 in the press

[WatcherZero]

Funny how Ed Milliband is now suddenly questioning HS2 route and value for money now the route goes through his Doncaster constituency.

 

[Voglitz]

The total number of trains are only two less (by my counting) which isn't that much difference (only about 10%)

In HS2 Ltd's phase one scenario, the total number of West Coast corridor trains appears to be about eight more, when HS2 is factored in.

however, if the trains are 8 coach (20m coaches) trains that run at 110mph that is less wear and tear than 11 coach (25/23m coaches) trains that truly and run at 125mph.

It's reasonable to assume that an 8 coach 110mph train would make for less wear and tear than a 11 coach 125mph one. It's also reasonable to assume that an 11 or 12 coach 125mph train would make for less wear and tear, than a 16 coach 250mph one.

But is there actually a published intention to replace 11 coach 125mph trains with 8 car 110mph ones? I don't recall seeing such a proposal.

If 5 services (those that don't stop early on their journey, I.e. those where there first stop is North of Rugby) then that is 15 coaches less every hour, over a week that's about 1,200 less coaches and over a year that's about 62,000. That equates to 250,000 wheel movement on the tracks every year.

You need to compare total wear and tear on the existing line, with the total wear and tear on HS2-plus-the-existing-line. Without a shadow of a doubt, building HS2 would increase total intercity train costs, and total infrastructure management costs.

 

[Haydn1971]

But is there actually a published intention to replace 11 coach 125mph trains with 8 car 110mph ones? I don't recall seeing such a proposal.

So, HS2 which provides many times the seating capacity of the existing WCML - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that with passengers moving to HS2, the requirement for long distance high services will reduce significantly. It's been quoted in documents for connectivity in the nor of England that HS2 will release Class 390s from the WCML for use, for example on the Sheffield-Manchester express services - which suggests some degree of loss of 125mph trains from WCML to various routes - East-West (EMT & TPE) and CrossCountry seem possible contenders.

You need to compare total wear and tear on the existing line, with the total wear and tear on HS2-plus-the-existing-line. Without a shadow of a doubt, building HS2 would increase total intercity train costs, and total infrastructure management costs.

New track on HS2 gives an excellent opportunity to provide low maintenance solutions for track bed, sleeper, rail, comms, signals, overhead cable systems etc that on the classic network are shoehorned into Victorian era structures, embankments and cuttings... Wear and tear will be managed under BIM systems, which are practically impossible to deploy on existing networks, Reduced strain on the classic network will also reduce costs, it's a win win situation, were costs will reduce ultimately.

 

[edwin_m]

That doesn't sound too convincing. By adopting a lower design speed allowing tighter curves, you have more flexibility in the choice of route, so you're likely to be able to reduce the need for tunnels, viaducts, bridges, high embankments, deep cuttings, geologically difficult areas, the demolition of expensive property, and destruction of natural or heritage assets.

That may be the case further north, where HS2 does have a reduced speed for example to avoid towns east of Warrington area and settlements and topography north of Meadowhall (the section probably to be deleted). It's less significant further south where introducing small-scale route changes isn't going to make much difference to the amount of engineering - you still have to face roughly the same obstacles.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Then perhaps you should win those arguments rather than screaming "SPEEEEEEEEEEED"?

I'd suggest the arguments relating to the speed and general alignment have already been had and decided within most industry and government bodies. Inevitably there will be some people who disagree with the scheme on principle or for NIMBY reasons but use the speed issue disingenuously in an attempt to destroy it. And of course also some people who feel that a few hours with the crayons can produce a better answer than the millions of person-hours put in by the professionals.

 

[MarkyT]

It's clear to me that with the fastest expresses replaced by HS2 it is likely the remaining longer distance services on the WCML will take on a different character, picking up more intermediate calls and perhaps with less sustained high speed running thus no longer justifying tilting 125MPH rolling stock, some of which might in turn be more usefully employed elsewhere. If the current WCML service pattern remains unchanged after HS2 then the fundemental capacity benefits will not be achieved, that is providing many more and more evenly spaced calls at Watford Jn, Milton Keynes, Rugby etc, linking these key towns far more effectively to each other and to both London and a number of Midlands and Northern towns and cities in a way than is impossible today, where intermediate stops have to severely 'rationed' in order to make way for the fastest Pendolinos from the key Northern cities. The capacity benefit of HS2 is not additional paths on the WCML fast lines, but opportunities to modify stopping patterns to better serve these important and growing intermediate towns. To a lesser extent similar restructuring of calling patterns may be possible on the MML and ECML, once their fastest trains are removed.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't know where that diagram comes from. It doesn't look like anything produced by Network Rail, the Department for Transport, HS2 Ltd, or Centro. According to Patrick McLoughlin, West Coast service would be 'broadly comparable' to the existing provision. Centro stated they wanted three Coventry intercity trains per hour, but would settle for two.

It's something I worked up based on the minimum required to retain something like the required connectivity.

What Centro wants is not what Centro Gets. It could want a trillion trains per second at 5000mph, but is not going to get them.

HS2 would not have a station at Coventry, or the Airport. The parkway station at Bickenhill would be over a mile from the airport, and according to the Independent Transport Commission, possibly connected by travelator. What is Bickenhill's forecast share of the Coventry - London market?

Because everyone who doesn't live in Bickhenhill lives in the ticket hall at Coventry station?
People living closer by car or similar to Bickhenhill than Coventry will certainly switch, and since the HS2 service will be 20 minutes faster or something, many people who are less than about 15 minutes further from the Parkway than Coventry station will likely also switch.

 

[Voglitz]

It's clear to me that with the fastest expresses replaced by HS2 it is likely the remaining longer distance services on the WCML will take on a different character, picking up more intermediate calls and perhaps with less sustained high speed running thus no longer justifying tilting 125MPH rolling stock, some of which might in turn be more usefully employed elsewhere. If the current WCML service pattern remains unchanged after HS2 then the fundemental capacity benefits will not be achieved, that is providing many more and more evenly spaced calls at Watford Jn, Milton Keynes, Rugby etc, linking these key towns far more effectively to each other and to both London and a number of Midlands and Northern towns and cities in a way than is impossible today, where intermediate stops have to severely 'rationed' in order to make way for the fastest Pendolinos from the key Northern cities. The capacity benefit of HS2 is not additional paths on the WCML fast lines, but opportunities to modify stopping patterns to better serve these important and growing intermediate towns. To a lesser extent similar restructuring of calling patterns may be possible on the MML and ECML, once their fastest trains are removed.

According to Network Rail, HS2 "frees up space for faster, more frequent" trains on the West Coast Main Line.

Inserting extra stops is not compatible with running faster trains.

Obviously, many of the claims made for HS2 are contradictory, ill-founded, and implausible.

Because everyone who doesn't live in Bickhenhill lives in the ticket hall at Coventry station?

Which parts of the city of Coventry have better transport access to Bickenhill, than to the city centre?

What is Bickenhill's forecast share of the Coventry - London market?

So, HS2 which provides many times the seating capacity of the existing WCML - it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that with passengers moving to HS2, the requirement for long distance high services will reduce significantly. It's been quoted in documents for connectivity in the nor of England that HS2 will release Class 390s from the WCML for use, for example on the Sheffield-Manchester express services - which suggests some degree of loss of 125mph trains from WCML to various routes - East-West (EMT & TPE) and CrossCountry seem possible contenders.

Clearly, HS2 would not provide "many times the seating capacity" of the existing WCML to most WCML destinations. That's because HS2 would not serve most WCML destinations.

It's been quoted in documents for connectivity in the nor of England that HS2 will release Class 390s from the WCML for use, for example on the Sheffield-Manchester express services - which suggests some degree of loss of 125mph trains from WCML to various routes - East-West (EMT & TPE) and CrossCountry seem possible contenders.

But there doesn't appear to be any information about how many ageing Class 390 would be released, and if replaced by Class 350, where they would come from.

New track on HS2 gives an excellent opportunity to provide low maintenance solutions for track bed, sleeper, rail, comms, signals, overhead cable systems etc that on the classic network are shoehorned into Victorian era structures, embankments and cuttings... Wear and tear will be managed under BIM systems, which are practically impossible to deploy on existing networks, Reduced strain on the classic network will also reduce costs, it's a win win situation, were costs will reduce ultimately.

Having to maintain one old and one new line is bound to be much more expensive, and hardly a win-win.

What's needed is actual cost data, comparing HS1 and WCML maintenance costs, for example. Available evidence tends to suggest HS1 is more expensive to maintain, than legacy track.

 

[Haydn1971]

Ok, so your trolling us ?

New member posting in nothing but HS2 threads contradicting known information and making bold claims that its not offering any benefits...

 

[MarkyT]

According to Network Rail, HS2 "frees up space for faster, more frequent" trains on the West Coast Main Line.

Inserting extra stops is not compatible with running faster trains.

Ahem ...

One of the biggest groups to benefit would be commuters travelling between Northampton, Milton Keynes, Watford Junction and London, where the worst overcrowding is forecast in the coming years. Initial analysis suggests as many as twelve trains per hour could operate on this section of the route in the busiest peak hours.

Other key beneficiaries would be passengers travelling between the major towns and cities of the West Midlands and between London and destinations in the Trent Valley. There are also likely to be opportunities to improve connectivity between the south end of the route and towns and cities further the north as well as more room for goods to be moved by rail freight.

 

[Voglitz]

Ahem ...

You, or Network Rail, need to explain how inserting extra stops makes for faster trains, with reference to HS2 Ltd's "Released Capacity".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ok, so your trolling us ?

New member posting in nothing but HS2 threads contradicting known information and making bold claims that its not offering any benefits...

What "known information"? How many ageing Class 390 would be released, and if replaced by Class 350, where they would come from?

 

[Haydn1971]

It's all done with fairy dust
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Ok, so what's your end game here ? What are you seeking to achieve ? Are you someone effected by the route, why aren't you posting in non HS2 threads ?

 

[MarkyT]

You, or Network Rail, need to explain how inserting extra stops makes for faster trains, with reference to HS2 Ltd's "Released Capacity".

Longer distance trains travelling on the fast lines making more calls at these primary intermediate towns and interchanges will be faster (for journeys involving these stations) than trains with a similar pattern travelling on the slow lines. There is no capacity on the slow lines to insert additional services with these stopping patterns due to the density of slower freight and all stations passenger services on that infrastructure. It is the differences in stopping patterns and thus sectional running times on each pair that is throttling overall capacity today. A new pair of extra fast lines to siphon off the very fastest services is a very practical way to release capacity on the current fast lines for an new intermediate (semi-fast) level of frequent service along the corridor. This technique is known as stopping pattern or speed segregation. Some of these trains will run through from Northern cities to maintain connections, some will start at places like Northampton or the West Midlands.

 

[HSTEd]

Inserting extra stops is not compatible with running faster trains.

Obviously, many of the claims made for HS2 are contradictory, ill-founded, and implausible.

Faster, more frequent, trains to some stations but not all.

Which parts of the city of Coventry have better transport access to Bickenhill, than to the city centre?

According to Google Maps - the Ricoh Arena is 20 minutes from Birmingham Airport/International and 14 minutes from Coventry Station by car.
1hr02 or so from Coventry and 40-odd minutes from Birmingham Airport/International. So the Airport/International complex wins.

Binley Woods is 16 minutes from Coventry Station by car - however it is only 26 minutes from the Airport/International complex - so the Airport complex wins.

Essentially it appears anyone close to the A45, M6 or M69 and a lot of people on the North side of Coventry will be closer in travel time terms to London via the HS2 station than the WCML station.
Indeed even if you were parked right outside Coventry station it would be a dead heat as to whether you would arrive in London first - so it appears anyone who has to drive to Coventry station would be better off, or at least no worse off, at the Airport station.

Clearly, HS2 would not provide "many times the seating capacity" of the existing WCML to most WCML destinations. That's because HS2 would not serve most WCML destinations.

Most WCML destinations are irrelevant.

 

[The Ham]

In HS2 Ltd's phase one scenario, the total number of West Coast corridor trains appears to be about eight more, when HS2 is factored in.

The point I was making was to do with wear and tear on the existing WCML, and that maintenance on the existing track would need to be less frequent.

It's reasonable to assume that an 8 coach 110mph train would make for less wear and tear than a 11 coach 125mph one. It's also reasonable to assume that an 11 or 12 coach 125mph train would make for less wear and tear, than a 16 coach 250mph one.

But is there actually a published intention to replace 11 coach 125mph trains with 8 car 110mph ones? I don't recall seeing such a proposal.

The thing with HS2 is that that level of wear and tear is spread over 6 tracks rather than 4, with the ability to close lines whilst still providing some level of service without the need to bus everyone.

There are no firm proposals for after HS2 is built, however it is fair to say that with the older 390's getting to being over 25 at the opening of phase 1 and approaching 35 by the opening of phase 2, it is not unreasonable to assume that they will be up for replacement with our without HS2 at a similar time.

Yes the newer sets would only be about 20 years old by the opening of phase 2, but there being only 4 of them, they could end up at an open access operator.

You need to compare total wear and tear on the existing line, with the total wear and tear on HS2-plus-the-existing-line. Without a shadow of a doubt, building HS2 would increase total intercity train costs, and total infrastructure management costs.

Total wear and tear will be more, as there are more lines. However, there will be significantly more capacity for all passengers (both on the WCML where there will be less long distances passengers freeing up seats for others to use and HS2 where there will be 400m long trains). Therefore there will be more passengers to cover those extra costs.

The question should be "given the extra costs associated with running an extra set of lines (in the form of HS2) will there be enough extra income to cover those costs?"

If the answer is no, then we need wait until such time as there is. However, the general industry consensus is that the answer is, yes there is and by removing some services from the WCML we can make that last longer before needing to do works. As well as making it easier to undertake works when they do need doing (easier generally = cheaper).

 

[Altnabreac]

The point I was making was to do with wear and tear on the existing WCML, and that maintenance on the existing track would need to be less frequent.



The thing with HS2 is that that level of wear and tear is spread over 6 tracks rather than 4, with the ability to close lines whilst still providing some level of service without the need to bus everyone.

There are no firm proposals for after HS2 is built, however it is fair to say that with the older 390's getting to being over 25 at the opening of phase 1 and approaching 35 by the opening of phase 2, it is not unreasonable to assume that they will be up for replacement with our without HS2 at a similar time.

Yes the newer sets would only be about 20 years old by the opening of phase 2, but there being only 4 of them, they could end up at an open access operator.



Total wear and tear will be more, as there are more lines. However, there will be significantly more capacity for all passengers (both on the WCML where there will be less long distances passengers freeing up seats for others to use and HS2 where there will be 400m long trains). Therefore there will be more passengers to cover those extra costs.

The question should be "given the extra costs associated with running an extra set of lines (in the form of HS2) will there be enough extra income to cover those costs?"

If the answer is no, then we need wait until such time as there is. However, the general industry consensus is that the answer is, yes there is and by removing some services from the WCML we can make that last longer before needing to do works. As well as making it easier to undertake works when they do need doing (easier generally = cheaper).

One interesting thing I have heard from Industry contacts is that the legacy West Coast main line services long term might have potential to run as 125mph but non tilt.

Although currently the EPS numbers are only for 390s apparently in many sections of the WCML it would be possible to have higher 110-125mph speeds for non tilting stock albeit slower in some places than the 390s can achieve.

Given the services likely to be running on the WCML post HS2 this might be a sensible compromise between slower 110mph running and expensive complicated replacement of Pendolinos and maintenance of tilt balises etc.

 

[edwin_m]

One interesting thing I have heard from Industry contacts is that the legacy West Coast main line services long term might have potential to run as 125mph but non tilt.

Although currently the EPS numbers are only for 390s apparently in many sections of the WCML it would be possible to have higher 110-125mph speeds for non tilting stock albeit slower in some places than the 390s can achieve.

Given the services likely to be running on the WCML post HS2 this might be a sensible compromise between slower 110mph running and expensive complicated replacement of Pendolinos and maintenance of tilt balises etc.

Yes, there are sections of the northern WCML where the alignment is good and higher speeds for non-tilting trains would be relatively straightforward. Most of Preston to Lancaster, Carlisle to the border and Lockerbie to Beattock spring to mind.

 

[MarkyT]

Yes, there are sections of the northern WCML where the alignment is good and higher speeds for non-tilting trains would be relatively straightforward. Most of Preston to Lancaster, Carlisle to the border and Lockerbie to Beattock spring to mind.

And this is also relevant to classic compatible HS trains on the northern sections to Scotland. The lighter non-tilting trains, with a very high power to weight ratio to perform adequately on HS2 itself, will be able to accelerate away more quickly from any shorter sections of curvature where today's Pendolino speeds will be impossible. Of course there are also some long sections of continuous reverse curvature in the hills where the effect of no tilt will be more pronounced. These would be the most promising to address with some straighter new segments for all electric passenger traffic. These could be more steeply graded than the existing general purpose route which could be retained for freight, the effective four tracking through these areas also offering more dynamic overtaking capacity.

 

[The Planner]

You still assume it will be captive and classic compatible, that still isn't decided. Like I have mentioned before, if the costs between gauge clearing classic and captive vs the cost of the two types of train is negligible you would go for one traction type.

 

[MarkyT]

You still assume it will be captive and classic compatible, that still isn't decided. Like I have mentioned before, if the costs between gauge clearing classic and captive vs the cost of the two types of train is negligible you would go for one traction type.

One fleet of a common design makes a lot of sense I agree, especially at the beginning when there could be major economies of scale for a custom design rather than a 'bog standard off the peg' European model, but surely that one fleet would more likely be a 'classic compatible', built so as to be as compatible with existing routes as possible in order to both minimise the gauge clearance costs and to be able to share track away from the new line with other rolling stock. The latter consideration is particularly important at stations, where if platforms to be used by HS2 trains were converted to GC clearances, any other traffic using them would require extending step boards. Clearly entirely separate platforms for HS could be considered for all stations served, but space for these may not be available and it would be difficult to justify such expensive dedicated facilities for comparatively few trains at the fairly large number of stops at the extremities of the HS network. In any case all intermediate platforms passed but not called at en route on the classic routes served would also need GC clearance platforms and thus local fleet replacement or modification too. I suppose that's one way of getting rid of pacers in the north!

 

[The Ham]

One fleet of a common design makes a lot of sense I agree, especially at the beginning when there could be major economies of scale for a custom design rather than a 'bog standard off the peg' European model, but surely that one fleet would more likely be a 'classic compatible', built so as to be as compatible with existing routes as possible in order to both minimise the gauge clearance costs and to be able to share track away from the new line with other rolling stock. The latter consideration is particularly important at stations, where if platforms to be used by HS2 trains were converted to GC clearances, any other traffic using them would require extending step boards. Clearly entirely separate platforms for HS could be considered for all stations served, but space for these may not be available and it would be difficult to justify such expensive dedicated facilities for comparatively few trains at the fairly large number of stops at the extremities of the HS network. In any case all intermediate platforms passed but not called at en route on the classic routes served would also need GC clearance platforms and thus local fleet replacement or modification too. I suppose that's one way of getting rid of pacers in the north!

I always thought that it would be the other way around, that the HS2 trains that went on the existing network would have steps that extended out at HS2 stations but didn't (or at least not as much) at classic stations.

In due course, where there was justification, the existing network could then be modified to take GC trains. Although this could mean having a mix of platform profiles at stations, although that could reduce operation flexibility. However, this would probably only be viable once there were significant HS arrangements and the non GC trains are self contained so as to avoid too much in the way of units that need movable steps.

As such routes North of the current phase 2 ends of the HS2 network would likely be those that saw conversion, that or GWR territory (where there is relatively little overlap with other operators, mostly XC who would be effected by changes to the North as well and/or could benefit from using GC compatible trains, making managing the overlap easier). Although we need to resolve the conversion from third rail to OHLE first and lean lessons from that before moving on to something more complex.

 

[MarkyT]

I always thought that it would be the other way around, that the HS2 trains that went on the existing network would have steps that extended out at HS2 stations but didn't (or at least not as much) at classic stations.

I agree that is far more likely than any extensive GC clearance work on existing lines. Widescale conversion of the UK rail network to continental loading gauge is a fantasy and will never stack up. It's not required for intermodal freight where the largest containers and trailers can be accomodated by squaring off the top corners (W10, W12), nor for heavy bulk traffic, which usually tares out before cubing out anyway so suitably voluminous wagons can be built within the UK profile.

 

[edwin_m]

I don't think anyone is considering GC clearance of existing lines. The choice is between a mixed fleet of GC-gauge captives and classic compatibles, where the captives would be confined to HS2 infrastructure, or buying all classic compatibles but still building the infrastructure to GC gauge.

 

[The Planner]

Or building a bigger single set of classic compatibles by doing work on the classic network as a halfway house.

 

[MarkyT]

Or building a bigger single set of classic compatibles by doing work on the classic network as a halfway house.

Ah I see where you're coming from now. I think that's a common compromise to varying extents with most new stock such as IEP. Either you specify to avoid ANY infrastructure changes (within reason) or you compare various levels of intervention to accomodate something slightly bigger, those changes also remaining compatible with other stock on the same tracks. Some of those levels of intervention might prove cost effective if they unlock some highly desirable features of the proposed new stock (e.g. the 26m coach length of IEP trains that saves weight and number of bogies for a given seating capacity).

 

[NotATrainspott]

It's all done with fairy dust
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Ok, so what's your end game here ? What are you seeking to achieve ? Are you someone effected by the route, why aren't you posting in non HS2 threads ?

Voglitz is another screen name for Beleben, who runs a virulently anti-HS2 blog. Somehow Paul Bigland (the photographer who's also on this forum) actually knows who he is in real life.

 

[Haydn1971]

Voglitz is another screen name for Beleben, who runs a virulently anti-HS2 blog. Somehow Paul Bigland (the photographer who's also on this forum) actually knows who he is in real life.

Thankfully disappeared now

 

[Voglitz]

Faster, more frequent, trains to some stations but not all.

That would imply not-faster, not-more-frequent trains, to other stations. But Network Rail don't seem to be willing or able to list which places would be in each category.

According to Google Maps - the Ricoh Arena is 20 minutes from Birmingham Airport/International and 14 minutes from Coventry Station by car. 1hr02 or so from Coventry and 40-odd minutes from Birmingham Airport/International. So the Airport/International complex wins.

Binley Woods is 16 minutes from Coventry Station by car - however it is only 26 minutes from the Airport/International complex - so the Airport complex wins.

Essentially it appears anyone close to the A45, M6 or M69 and a lot of people on the North side of Coventry will be closer in travel time terms to London via the HS2 station than the WCML station.

No HS2 trains would stop at the airport. Some would stop at a parkway in Bickenhill, about 1 mile from Birmingham International.

Binley Woods to Birmingham International is '19 miles, 26 minutes' via the M6, according to the AA. Binley Woods to Rugby station is '8.9 miles, 20 minutes'. So for London-bound commuting from that village, HS2 would mean driving 19-odd miles in the wrong direction, and more train mileage, for no travel time gain.

Coventry Ricoh arena is probably more of a destination than an origin, so the number of its visitors having car access from HS2 parkway would be limited. A taxi to the arena from International station costs about £40.

Indeed even if you were parked right outside Coventry station it would be a dead heat as to whether you would arrive in London first - so it appears anyone who has to drive to Coventry station would be better off, or at least no worse off, at the Airport station.

Coventry council's rail consultants gave a Coventry to London HS2 journey time of 66 minutes, which would obviously not be a dead heat.

Most WCML destinations are irrelevant.

What is irrelevant for you, and what is irrelevant for a serious business case, might not be the same thing.

Most long distance journeys are not between HS2 station cities.

 

[HSTEd]

That would imply not-faster, not-more-frequent trains, to other stations. But Network Rail don't seem to be willing or able to list which places would be in each category.

You want them to list detailed features of a timetable 15 years in advance?

No HS2 trains would stop at the airport. Some would stop at a parkway in Bickenhill, about 1 mile from Birmingham International.

Presumably, and I must admit I am not entirely sure here, it would take something like 80 seconds at most more, since there would certainly be a car park at the HS2 station.
And it seems likely there would be a link road anyway.

Binley Woods to Birmingham International is '19 miles, 26 minutes' via the M6, according to the AA. Binley Woods to Rugby station is '8.9 miles, 20 minutes'. So for London-bound commuting from that village, HS2 would mean driving 19-odd miles in the wrong direction, and more train mileage, for no travel time gain.

How do you figure that?

26 minutes to the Birmingham International/Airport Complex and then something like 42 to London, so 68 minutes.
20 minutes to Coventry station and then 67 minutes into London sp 87 minutes.
Doesn't look like no journey time gain to me.
You can save 15-20 minutes by driving to Birmingham International/Airport and taking HS2.

Coventry council's rail consultants gave a Coventry to London HS2 journey time of 66 minutes, which would obviously not be a dead heat.

But that is a dead heat if you check the timetable

What is irrelevant for you, and what is irrelevant for a serious business case, might not be the same thing.

Most long distance journeys are not between HS2 station cities.

Really? Do you have figures for that?

 

[Voglitz]

You want them to list detailed features of a timetable 15 years in advance?

The year 2026 is 15 years away?

Basic frequencies and journey times are "detailed features of a timetable"?

Presumably, and I must admit I am not entirely sure here, it would take something like 80 seconds at most more, since there would certainly be a car park at the HS2 station.
And it seems likely there would be a link road anyway.

How do you figure that?

26 minutes to the Birmingham International/Airport Complex and then something like 42 to London, so 68 minutes.
20 minutes to Coventry station and then 67 minutes into London sp 87 minutes.
Doesn't look like no journey time gain to me.
You can save 15-20 minutes by driving to Birmingham International/Airport and taking HS2.

You can't save 15-20 minutes by driving to Birmingham International/Airport and taking HS2, because it doesn't exist, and if it did exist, its trains wouldn't stop at Birmingham International.

The HS2 parkway station and its approach roads haven't been designed, so there is no way of calculating accurate transit times.

But that is a dead heat if you check the timetable

If you check the timetable, you get a range of times from Coventry, such as 58, 60, 62, 67 minutes.

Coventry council's consultants used 60 minutes (and 66 minutes via HS2).

Really? Do you have figures for that?

There are figures for big city flows, and for total trips, aren't there?

 

[The Planner]

The HS2 parkway station and its approach roads haven't been designed, so there is no way of calculating accurate transit times.

They have and Ive seen them, they would have been a requirement of the Hybrid Bill.